Talk:Loggerhead
Is this a good format to use for city pages? City name, type (city, town, ect), Region, Zone? *The Loggerhead is a settlement southwest of Emond's Field in The Mountains of Mist region. It is located in the North Misty Mountains zone. Medakan (talk) 13:32, March 13, 2017 (UTC) Name, type, nearby landmark, region, zone. Medakan (talk) 13:36, March 13, 2017 (UTC) :I think that's been how I've done them by default, especially for the smaller towns and villages. If we decide to completely separate city/town/village pages from zone pages, then we can also possibly add something like an "Infobox city" to such pages for structured presentation to complement other page structure. i'm not sure offhand how useful that would be but it is a possibility. :For pages where it is also the zone, I've altered the intro slightly to say "is a zone and ." Again however, if we separate such things completely this will go. Instead, we'd probably have a "Otheruses" type template at the start to say something like "This page is about the city of . For the zone, see " (and vice versa). This is already used on certain other pages with similar ambiguity. :If you have a better idea for any of this please feel free to share. Russ3Z (talk) 14:27, March 13, 2017 (UTC) Region I just noticed you show the region for this as The Mountains of Mist, though the zone in which it resides (North Misty Mountains) shows both that and The Two Rivers as regions. Is this intentional? From the map, if anything it would look like the settlement would be in the TR area, if that zone is a part of both regions. Russ3Z (talk) 14:30, March 13, 2017 (UTC) :I added the region from memory just to fill the question marks and check format for the description. It should be both right? Medakan (talk) 16:30, March 13, 2017 (UTC) ::I'm not sure. First, are you saying that the zone is correct and contains portions from both regions, based on room names/descriptions/etc? ::If that is so, I would still probably be inclined to think that the settlement should only be part of one region, unless it physically straddles the border somehow. Make sense? This would be a bit different than the situation for the Sinking Village, where the entire zone is a disputed region semi-claimed by two rival nations. If the Two Rivers does not claim the entirety of the zone (good question for all the mountains of mist zones!), then the settlement would only be a part of whichever "claimed" portion of the zone it's in. ::I hope this makes sense, and that I am not potentially complicating this too much... Russ3Z (talk) 17:03, March 13, 2017 (UTC) :::There sure is a lot to account for when trying to cut the map up like this *grin*. Politically I would think the RE would claim this zone as it has a direct connection off of thier home zone. Game wise it scalps as Mountains of Mist and is named after the mountain range. Book wise I would think it is outside of the Two Rivers as they didn't claim much past the villages, the al'Thor farm iirc being on the western outskirts. What is the definition of region we are looking for? Is it political? Geographically prioritized? Game over books for sure Id think, but with some consideration? Medakan (talk) 19:53, March 13, 2017 (UTC) ::::Bear in mind that the scalp regions are purely a function of the grid, and that zones can and do sometimes get moved on the grid, irrespective of the scalp regions, which to my understanding are hard-coded and can't be changed currently, though this warrants further investigation. Some zones will show a scalp region completely out of line with the geopolitical reality (Garen's Wall and Atop Garen's Wall show as Altara, for instance), so the scalp info is really of minor concern (though nice to have for completeness and to make a "scalp region map" eventually). ::::As far as what constitutes a region, political is generally the first priority I would think, then geographic, so for instance while the Coastal Roadway is technically in a no-man's land between Illian and Tear according to the book maps, both nations would likely either have overlapping claims or treat it as a buffer zone. For the sake of trying to have every zone in Some region, we resort to convenient expedients such as having both claim it in-game, rather than make it and the fort zone into a mini-region or some sort. This cuts down on the number of extraneous, ill-defined regions and makes things easier in general. ::::What I try to consider is room names and descriptions. A good example of this is East of the Waterwood, where you have the bridge and river giving a well-defined boundary mid-zone, a clear case of two nations sharing the zone. For the zone in question here, I'll have to look at it tonight if I have time (or you can) to see if there are any rooms which make specific mention of the two rivers or westwood or other such areas that would obviously be considered TR-territory. We'll have to make some judgement call either way and just let that stick. Russ3Z (talk) 20:31, March 13, 2017 (UTC)